Pentagon head Leon Panetta told
ABC News that the US is "ready" to attack Iran. It
depends on US President Barack Obama giving it a
go. Will he or won't he?

Nobel Prize
winner and Drone Godfather Obama has been busy
"justifying the 'just war' theories of Christian
philosophers", as Ray McGovern graphically put it
- and as attested by the New York Times
orgasmically promoting its piece "Secret 'Kill
List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and
Will'.

Apparently there's no Iranian "kill
list' so far - apart from scientists being whacked
by the unsavory association of the Israeli Mossad
and the Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) terrorist
outfit. And there's no evidence - yet - Obama
considers attacking Iran a "just war". On the
contrary; Obama might flaunt a nuclear deal with Iran

as a major foreign policy
victory on the way to re-election. But - just in
case - the Pentagon is keeping up the pressure.

Enrich, and you're
historyPanetta regurgitated the same old
fallacy perpetrated ad infinitum, since at least
2006, by the neo-cons, the Israel lobby and US
corporate media, according to which Iran is about
to build a nuclear bomb like … tomorrow. "We will
do everything we can to prevent Iran from
developing a weapon", Panetta said. Once again, it
doesn't matter that the International Atomic
Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, plus 17
US intelligence agencies have stressed this is not
the case.

Panetta's move must be seen as
the Pentagon preemptively bombarding the P5 + 1
talks about the Iranian nuclear program - now
scheduled for a third round in Moscow on June 18.
As Gareth Porter has shown, there can be no deal
as long as Washington insists on absolutely
ditching the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), to which Iran subscribes (See US
hard line in Iran talks driven by Israel, Asia
Times Online, May 29, 2012). The US position
amounts to never allowing Iran to even enrich
uranium for civilian purposes.

Panetta
also insists that the "international community's
been unified" about it. That's nonsense. Not only
the BRICS group of emerging powers but also the
whole Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has insisted Iran
has a right, like any other country that
subscribes to the NPT, to maintain a civilian
nuclear program.

Now let's turn to the
Iranian position. Iranian nuclear chief Fereydoon
Abbasi said, "We have no reason to retreat from
producing the 20% because we need 20% uranium just
as much to meet our needs,'' according to Iranian
state TV.

Not only that; Iran will start
building two new nuclear power plants in 2013, and
its sole active nuclear reactor is now close to
full production levels.

Under the NPT, a
member state with a consistent civilian nuclear
program essentially may also acquire a nuclear
weapons capability - what is also defined as a
"nuclear option". Japan, Brazil and Argentina, for
instance, all NPT member states, have maintained
their "nuclear option" for decades. They could
ditch the NPT and build a nuclear bomb in a few
months if they wanted to. They won't. But
Washington, on a mission from God, believes Iran
will.

The fact is Tehran is not doing
anything illegal in its pursuit of nuclear
technology. It has even agreed to talk in Baghdad
about suspending its 20% uranium enrichment. But
then Iranian negotiators found out in Baghdad that
for the US, the red line - no enrichment at all -
is definitive. At best, in exchange Iran might
receive supplies of medical isotopes.

So
Tehran won't be moved from its position; it will
only consider suspending its 20% enrichment if the
ultra-harsh Western oil embargo plus the financial
war via banking sanctions is reconsidered.

By the way, Iran's Central Bank Governor
Mahmoud Bahmani said that Tehran has already
activated an alternative payment clearing system
to SWIFT - thus foiling another vector of
Washington's relentless economic war. What this
means is that Iran, BRICS members Russia, India
and China, plus Iran's trading partners in the
developing world are moving one step beyond in
their flight from the US dollar as global reserve
currency.

Sanction me baby one more
time Even in the - unlikely - possibility
that the leadership in Tehran suddenly decided to
stop all uranium enrichment, and kill the whole
nuclear program on the spot, Iran would still be
under US sanctions. The sanctions have practically
nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program. It's
all about regime change.

By 401-11,
Congress in the US last Friday approved a
resolution that goes even beyond "crippling"
sanctions.

US sanctions are bound to
remain forever unless President Obama certifies to
the extremely unpopular US Congress (14% approval
rate), "Iran has released all political prisoners
and detainees; ceased its practices of violence
and abuse of Iranian citizens engaging in peaceful
political activity; conducted a transparent
investigation into the killings and abuse of
peaceful political activists in Iran and
prosecuted those responsible; and made progress
toward establishing an independent judiciary."

There's more; Obama also has to certify,
"The government of Iran has ceased supporting acts
of international terrorism and no longer satisfies
certain requirements for designation as a state
sponsor of terrorism; and [that] Iran has ceased
the pursuit, acquisition, and development of
nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic
weapons."

Into this mire of wishful
thinking steps Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Martin Dempsey. He told CNN on Monday, "the
military option should be considered". Oops, but
that refers to that other war in the making - in
Syria. General Dempsey said he would prefer for
the "international community" to effect regime
change in Syria, but - just in case - the Pentagon
is ready to pounce ("Of course, we always have to
provide military options.") The NATOGCC compound
is barely containing its shrieks of joy.

So what's it all about, Barack? So many
wars to choose, so little time till Re-election
Day.